Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: the improvement of nursing quality is an important guarantee and a critical step of nursing work. Hence, the quality-improvement study has received broad attention. However, due to the differences in research design and intervention strategies, large deviations exist in reporting of quality-improvement studies.
Objectives: we used Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) to assess the reporting quality of continuous quality-improvement (CQI) studies in the nursing field published in China.
Methods: we searched the three Chinese electronic databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database) from inception to February 2019. We included all CQI studies in the nursing field. Two review authors extracted and analyzed the data independently. We designed a scoring rubric according to the 17 items from SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Each item counted for one score, and the specific score of each item was based on the information that the included studies reported. We summed overall scores for the 17 items, which we defined as ‘high’ (12.1 to 17), ‘medium’ (5.1 to 12), and ‘low’ (0 to 5). We used Excel (Microsoft Excel 2015) and Stata 12.0 for statistical analysis.
Results: ultimately, we included 35 CQI studies, in which the overall scores ranged from 3.3 to 10.1 (6.2 ± 1.6). The reporting rate of 11 items was less than 80%, and that of 15 items was less than 50%. Particularly, four items (item 10, 13 16 and 17) were never completely reported. The included studies of nursing journals reported better on items 7, 8, 9 and 11 than non-nursing journals, and had a higher score (P = 0.004); the included studies of China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations index (CSTPCD-index) journals reported on items 8, 9 and 14, with better scores than the rest (P = 0.0208); the included studies published after 2015, which also scored higher than those before 2015 (P = 0.0259), were well reported on item 2 and 10.
Conclusions: the overall reporting quality of CQI studies in the nursing field published in China was not high. What’s more, the reporting rate and complete reporting rate of the items of SQUIRE 2.0 were poor. More attention should be paid to the standardization of CQI studies, and pertinence measures should be taken to popularize SQUIRE 2.0. We Chinese authors should follow the SQUIRE 2.0 proactively while writing, which will give readers a clear perspective on the specific process.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: patients and healthcare consumers were not involved in this work.
Objectives: we used Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) to assess the reporting quality of continuous quality-improvement (CQI) studies in the nursing field published in China.
Methods: we searched the three Chinese electronic databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database) from inception to February 2019. We included all CQI studies in the nursing field. Two review authors extracted and analyzed the data independently. We designed a scoring rubric according to the 17 items from SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Each item counted for one score, and the specific score of each item was based on the information that the included studies reported. We summed overall scores for the 17 items, which we defined as ‘high’ (12.1 to 17), ‘medium’ (5.1 to 12), and ‘low’ (0 to 5). We used Excel (Microsoft Excel 2015) and Stata 12.0 for statistical analysis.
Results: ultimately, we included 35 CQI studies, in which the overall scores ranged from 3.3 to 10.1 (6.2 ± 1.6). The reporting rate of 11 items was less than 80%, and that of 15 items was less than 50%. Particularly, four items (item 10, 13 16 and 17) were never completely reported. The included studies of nursing journals reported better on items 7, 8, 9 and 11 than non-nursing journals, and had a higher score (P = 0.004); the included studies of China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations index (CSTPCD-index) journals reported on items 8, 9 and 14, with better scores than the rest (P = 0.0208); the included studies published after 2015, which also scored higher than those before 2015 (P = 0.0259), were well reported on item 2 and 10.
Conclusions: the overall reporting quality of CQI studies in the nursing field published in China was not high. What’s more, the reporting rate and complete reporting rate of the items of SQUIRE 2.0 were poor. More attention should be paid to the standardization of CQI studies, and pertinence measures should be taken to popularize SQUIRE 2.0. We Chinese authors should follow the SQUIRE 2.0 proactively while writing, which will give readers a clear perspective on the specific process.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: patients and healthcare consumers were not involved in this work.
PDF